1. Results Questionnaire
Sabine Roscher| Expert group reporting| | Brussels
Results Questionnaire
on the quality of the Natura 2000 data in the Standard Data Forms (SDF)

2. Results questionnaire on data quality of SDF
Completed questionnaire received
from the following 20 countries:
AT,BG,CZ,DE,DK,EE,ES,FI,FR,HR,
HU,IE,IT,LV,PL,RO,SE,SI,SK,PT
apologies sent by UK

3. (Q-1) Procedure of review/update SDFs
Depends very much on the situation within each MS
Flexibility of update SDF in some MS limited due to procedures established by ministries
Partly revision of SDF data was done due to introduction of revised SDF
Priority is given to add data for new sites
Update of SDF
subsequent the Art12&17 reporting
related to process of management planning, new projects, new surveys/mapping of spec./hab.
fields corrected if site changed or error identified
procedures established where e.g. site managers can apply for change in SDF

4. (Q-2) How often SDF reviewed

5. (Q-3) Updates partially or as a whole

6. (Q-4) Coherence between Art 17/12 & SDF

7. (Q-5) Add a time-stamp to the SDF?

8. (Q-6) Is a smiley useful for communication
If smiley useful then at least must be differentiated for specific parts of the SDF

9. (Q-7) Suggestions f. improving SDF data quality
Overview on suggestions made by MS
Monitoring system at national level limited due to lack of resources
Improvement of qa/qc reports, error messages of SDF tool and exportMDB log file
Set up a system that extracts problematic records
Highlight inconsistencies e.g.: if a record of a species in SCI falls outside the distribution
Detailed conclusions on the representativity quicker transmitted to MS
SDF should be understandable also for layman (e.g. not only scientific names)
Some guidance on legal consequences of updating SDF since SAC was designated
and how to do it

10. (Q-7) Suggestions f. improving SDF data quality
Continue overview on suggestions made by MS
SDF further explanations e.g. for field NP
Population units, add field for method (not obligatory)
If site belongs to more than one region: ecological information should be specific in SDF
for each of the region
In SDF degree of conservation currently mean value of site, would be better to
specify per ABC value (e.g habitat 9130: A-50 ha; B-200 ha; C-800 ha)
=> sum of area per ABC value used for stats
Introduction of a code for a habitat to be restored